Related
I'm currently working with a tool that over the years has evolved naturally from a number of perl scripts accessed through an apache web server, to a huge collection of tools using a common database and web site (still running apache, but using catalyst instead of CGI).
The problem we're having is that different departments have done local branches from the common main branch for implementing their own new functionality and adaptations.
We're now charged with the task of deciding how a common platform can be made available where certain base functionality is made one track instead of having all these different branches.
These kind of problems must spring up all the time so I'm hoping someone have a good strategy to offer as to how we should continue from here. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
In general, make sure you have buy in from everybody involved. Trying to do this kind of project without having people on board will just make your life more difficult.
Look for the quick wins. What functionality, if it changed, would have the fastest and clearest beneficial effect across all departments. If it takes you three months to get some good out of it, people won't rate the good results very highly.
Break functionality down as far as you can. One of the biggest problems in forked legacy systems is that a seemingly innocuous change in one place can have huge ramifications elsewhere because of the assumptions made about state. Isolating state in different features should help you out there.
we are creating hospital information system software. The project will be different hospital to hospital and contain different use cases. But lots of parts will be the same. So we will use branching mechanism of the source control. If we find a bug in one hospital, how can we know the other branches have the same bug or not.
IMAGE http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/5074/version.png
The numbers in the picture which we attached show the each hospital software.
Do you have a solution about this problem ?
Which source control(SVN,Git,Hg) we will be suitable about this problem ?
Thank you.!
Ok, this is not really a VCS question, this is first and foremost and architectural problem - how do you structure and build your application(s) in such a way that you can deliver the specific use cases to each hospital as required whilst being able, as you suggest, to fix bugs in commom code.
I think one can state with some certainty that if you follow the model suggested in your image you aren't going to be able to do so consistently and effectively. What you will end up with is a number of different, discrete, applications that have to be maintained separately even though they have at some point come from a common set of code.
Its hard to make more than good generalisations but the way I would think about this would be something along the following lines:
Firstly you need a core application (or set of applications or set of application libraries) these will form the basis of any delivered system and therefore a single maintained set of code (although this core may itself include external libraries).
You then have a number of options for your customised applications (the per hospital instance) you can define the available functionality a number of means:
At one extreme, by configuration - having one application containing all the code and effectively switching things on and off on a per instance basis.
At the other extreme by having an application per hospital that substantially comprises the core code with customisation.
However the likelyhood is that whilst the sum of the use cases for each hospital is different individual use cases will be common across a number of instances so you need to aim for a modular system i.e. something that starts with the common core and that can be extended and configured by composition as much as by any other means.
This means that you are probably want to make extensive use of Inversion of Control and Dependency Injection to give you flexibility within a common framework. You want to look at extensibility frameworks (I do .NET so I'd be looking at the Managed Extensibility Framework - MEF) that allow you to go some way towards "assembling" an application at runtime rather than at compile time.
You also need to pay attention to how you're going to deploy - especially how you're going to update - your applications and at this point you're right you're going to need to have both your version control and you build environment right.
Once you know how you're going build your application then you can look at your version control system - #VonC is spot on when he says that the key feature is to be able to include code from shared projects into multiple deliverable projects.
If it were me, now, I'd probably have a core (which will probably itself be multiple projects/solutions) and then one project/solution per hospital but I would be aiming to have as little code as possible in the per hospital projects - ideally just enough framework to define the instance specific configuration and UI customisation
As to which to use... if you're a Microsoft shop then take a good long hard look at TFS, the productivity gains from having a well integrated environment can be considerable.
Otherwise (and in any case), DVCS (Mercurial, Git, Bazaar, etc) seem to me to be gaining an edge on the more traditional systems as they mature. I think SVN is an excellent tool (I use it and it works), and I think that you need a central repository for this kind of development - not least because you need somewhere that triggers your Continuous Integration Server - however you can achieve the same thing with DVCS and the ability to do frequent local, incremental, commits without "breaking the build" and the flexibility that DVCS gives you means that if you have a choice now then that is almost certainly the way to go (but you do need to ensure that you establish good practices in ensuring that code is pushed to your core repositories early)
I think there is still a lot to address purely from the VCS question - but you can't get to that in useful detail 'til you know how you're going to structure your delivered solution.
All of those VCS (Version Control System) you mention are compatible with the notion of "shared component", which allows you to define a common shared and deployed code base, plus some specialization in each branch:
CVCS (Centralized)
Subversion externals
DVCS (Distributed)
Git submodules (see true nature of submodules)
Hg SubRepos
Considering the distributed aspect of the release management process, a DVCS would be more appropriate.
If the bug is located in the common code base, you can quickly see in the other branches if:
what exact version of the common component they are referring to.
they refer the same or older version of that common component than the one in which the bug has been found (in which case chances are they also do have the bug)
I am curious as to how other development teams spec out new features. The team I have just moved up to lead has no real specification process. I have just implemented a proper development process with CI, auto deployment and logging all bugs using Trac and I am now moving on to deal with changes.
I have a list of about 20 changes to our product to have done over the next 2 months. Normally I would just spec out each change going into detail of what should be done but I am curious as to how other teams handle this. Any suggestions?
I think we had a successful approach in my last job as we delivered the project on time and with only a couple of issues found in production. However, there were only 3 people working on the product, so I'm not entirely sure how it would scale to larger teams.
We wrote specs upfront for the whole product but without going into too much detail and with an emphasis on the UI. This was a means for us to get a feel for what had to be done and for the scope of the project.
When we started implementing things, we had to work everything out in a lot more detail (and inevitably had to do some things differently from the spec). To that end, we got together and worked out the best approach to implementing each feature (sometimes with prototypes). We didn't update the original spec but we did make notes after the meetings as it's very easy to forget the details afterwards.
So in summary, my approach is to treat specs as an exploratory tool and to work out finer details during implementation. Depending on the project, it may also be a good idea to keep the original spec up to date as the application evolves (which we didn't need to do this time).
Good question but its can be subjective. I guess it depends on the strategy of the product, if its to be deployed to multiple clients in the same way or to a single client on a bespoke project, the impact, dependency these changes have on the system and each other and the priority these changes need to be made.
I would look at the priority and the dependency, that will naturally start grouping things?
I recently joined the IT department of a big insurance company. Although the department's title is "IT", a lot of code gets written here; Java, JSP, JavaScript, COBOL and even some C++ from what I've heard. All the programs that allow insurers, brokers and the rest of the tie-wearing, white-collar workers to issue new contracts and deal with clients runs on the code produced by this department. I've been told that the department is pretty good by the parent company's standards and that we've even received an internal award or two. We're 17 people in the department, split in smaller groups of 2 or 3. As you might've guessed from the COBOL part further up, the average age is over 40 years (as a point of reference I'm 29 yo).
Right now, there is no version control system in place (there exists a general backup scheme though). When needed, files are passed around through shared folders. Usually there's one person in every group responsible for copying the "final" version of the files back to the production server. I find this absurd and even a bit dangerous.
How may I try to convince management that we should implement a VCS scheme in our department? I've never deployed a VCS myself but every other place I've worked at had one. I think I'll hit a "we've been OK until now, why bother" wall from the first step, coupled with the age of most of my co-workers that will feel this step is an unnecessary hurdle.
I know the basic advantages of VCS (traceability, granular backups, accountability etc). I'm looking to back my case with realistic cases and examples of real added value over the implementation costs, not just a "but-but-but, we must have a VCS you fools!" :-)
You don't necessarily need their permission.
Install svn on your machine, start using it, and then start convincing your fellow team members to use it too.
Then watch and see what happens.
Edits
The basic idea of this is that it's easier to show than to tell.
It's a great idea to support your ideas with a working implementation/solution.
Of course, if you succeed, and they want the system used department/company wide, you must be prepared to support the transition, know how the software is to be installed and used.
Going ahead and using something accepted in the industry is faster than having discussions on what system should be used.
There is a good change that this will get you noticed. You may also get your peers respect and support.
As suggested, the same approach can be made on other areas:
issue/bug tracking systems
quality tools
time tracking
continuous integration
a wiki for knowledge base, HOWTO's, guidelines, tutorials, presentations, screencasts
different IDEs and tools
build tools
automated deployment
various scripts that would save your team time
.. any item that will visibly add quality to your work, but doesn't (yet) disrupt existing methodologies and practices.
Joel Spolsky has an excellent article: Getting Things Done When You're Only a Grunt
Quote
Nobody on your team wants to use
source control? Create your own CVS
repository, on your own hard drive if
necessary. Even without cooperation,
you can check your code in
independently from everybody else's.
Then when they have problems that
source control can solve (someone
accidentally types rm * ~ instead of
rm *~), they'll come to you for help.
Eventually, people will realize that
they can have their own checkouts,
too.
Management? I will put bold the expressions and words you should use:
Your should display some examples how a VCS will prevent losing money to the company if some error/bugs or disaster happens. It will be faster to solve all problems, so maintaning the systens won't be so lazy and people become more productive.
You should also mention that implementing a VCS has no costs.
VCS will also give advantages for backup all the existing code. So, all the code will be safe.
My opinion on how to go about doing this, is that you should try to convince your fellow developers first. The way I see it, there are two ways this might go about:
You give the right arguments to the other developers (possibly only the head developers will suffice), they like the idea, and the suggest it to management. Management is easy to convince at that point, so everyone is happy.
You give the right arguments to management, who get all excited (great!) and mandate that version control has to be installed and used by everyone. Here's the thing: If at this point the other developers are not sold to the idea already, then (a) they might be hostile to an idea that management is forcing upon them, and (b) they might not like you for being the cause of it all.
So what are good arguments to convince fellow developers? As someone who uses subversion (which is the one I recommend in this case, by the way) even for his solo projects, here's a few advantages I can think of:
Using version control forces people to think of code modification in terms of a series of small, self-contained changes. This is an extremely beneficial way of working: where otherwise people would be inclined to make lots of changes all over the place, leaving the code in a mess, version control kinda forces them to change the code in bite-size, easy-to-swallow bits, keeping the code compiling at all times, easing the cost of integration with other modules, etc.
Version control makes it very easy to see what has changed in the code each time. This might sound trivial, but when you start modifying code it's easy to lose track after a while. But with VC it's all an "svn diff" (or equivalent) away, always.
Version control makes it very easy to see who has changed the code each time. So that, for example, when something breaks, you know who to blame. (It's not an accident that the subversion command which shows who last changed each line is called "svn blame".)
Version control makes it very easy to see why a piece of code was changed. Commit messages, if used properly, essentially provide continual documentation of the ongoing development process. Documentation that otherwise wouldn't be written.
Version control makes it very easy to track down regressions and see where they appeared. In the easy case, you just track down commit messages and spot the culprit. In the average case, you have to consult the diffs too. In the hard case, you have to do regression testing of previous versions using what amounts to binary search, which is still better than the no-VC case, where you simply have no clue.
This list is not exhaustive, of course, but these are the main benefits that come to mind right now. Obviously, as others have already mentioned, it's easier to show all this to your colleagues than to describe it to them, and setting it up for yourself first (but importing everyone's code, mind) sounds like a great idea.
As Joel points out on one of his articles, start using your own one man version control system and market its benefit on every opportunity you get. Show them the benefits of traceability, granular backups etc from your single instance. People will start realizing its benefits irrespective of their age.
I agree with the answer that are referring to the Joel Guerrilla article.
Install/Use some thing with a low overhead. Hg (Mercurial) is easy in a mixed eniroment and is good because you can bail out and use something else in an easy way.
You must share your things without making a fuzz about it. When someone needs your code, export it and use the "standard" corporate method (shared folder or whatever)
When you get code, always import it into a repos, if you think it is a new commit of a repos you already have, try to get it into that one.
Sooner or later you will have a code for several project and hopefully some commits on some repos. Then you can expose those with the mercurials webserver interface (hg serve -p XXXX).
When the times comes when someone don't know why something suddenly don't works as it should be and is trying to figure out why becase it was working last monday ... and you know that you have that code in a repos step up and ask if you can be of any assistance. Get the falty code, commit it into your repos and expose with hg serve. Look at it in the browser.
My point is that you must prove with real cases to your colleges that this stuff has a value.
If the haven't figured it out by themselves after some many years you have a mountain to climb but it can be done. You must be patience though. It could very well take a year to convert one man (old dog). If you have any younger coworkers try to do this together, the more code you can get hold on the better.
I would point out the hazards of not having one - lost code, developers over writing each other changes, ability to rollback problems, etc.
Also since Subversion and some others are free, point out there is no real cost to purchase, jsut the time to implement.
The biggest issue you will have as the new guy is that you will be seen as rockign the boat, if they had no issues to date they will be hard to convince. Perhaps start using it locally jsut for yourself and maybe they will like what they see and start to adopt it.
I would try small steps, maybe ask the others if they ever used one, point out the benefits, when an issue arises that a system would have prevented or aided in point it out delicately.
From a purely business perspective, and depending on the size and nature of your parent company an IT auditor may consider your lack of a VCS a finding (i.e. something that needs fixing). I believe you could improve your pitch to management by telling them that any CVS is a great way of showing that your department respects its resources and works in a structured way and efficient way, something auditors always like to see.
I don't know how your corporate culture works but I'd be careful about rolling out your own CVS since if it does see use it suddenly becomes your responsibility when things go wrong, even if you were not at fault. To cover your ass (and keep the aforementioned auditors even happier) I'd roll the system out with a full set of written procedures for its use and maintenance.
Finally while I myself am a big fan of initiative at any level of the enterprise don't expect people to remember to say thanks when they figure out how great it is. Some might, but for the most part you're doing this to make your own life easier and for your own karma.
Remember, there are plenty of version control systems that are absolutely free. And the amount of time spent installing and maintaining a version control system should be somewhere near 0 (they shouldn't require any maintenance). There isn't even a space penalty for most systems, as they can compress things internally.
You have listed some advantages, and there are others. But more importantly, I can't think of a single disadvantage.
I would also recommend starting with implementing VCS (Version Control System) for yourself first. I'd recommend using one of distributed VCS (Git, Mercurial, Bazaar) rather than centralized Subversion, because it would be easier to create central repository (or repositories) by cloning than moving your Subversion repository to central place. Distributed SCM can be also used in a smaller group to exchange ideas.
A few advantages of (modern) version control systems:
You can always revert (go back) to last working version of your code (provided that you follow some sane version control conventions, like at least tagging only tested code). With code shared via folders it might turn out that no one version works, backup copies were deleted to save space, and recovering code from backup is tedious / was never tested.
You can switch between working on some new feature (some experimental work), and working on urgent fix in currently deployed version (maintenace work) thanks to branches (and stash / shelve for uncommitted work).
If you follow good practices for version control (small and often commits, changes being about one single thing, writing good commit message describing change and whys of change) you would have much, much easier finding bugs, be it by bisecting history to find which change introduced bug, or by using version control system to look up who was responsible for given area of code (annotate / blame).
Start talking to the other developers about problems thay have had in the past as a way to get to know the system and how it evolved (sneaky, sneaky, sneaky, but hey this information will probably come in handy at some poitn even aside from the version control issue). You are bound to sooner or later find some wonderful examples of things that have already happened which would have been far less painful if you had version control. Use these examples when you present the idea to management.
I agree with the idea that you can probably start using your own version control and eventually will be able to help thm out of a fix, but I'd bet money they have been in some of those fixes already and if they already remember how painful the problme was before, it will help sell the new idea.
Look for another job.
Seriously.
There are way better jobs out there that don't require you to teach the existing staff.
Ones where you could go into work and just, y'know, work.
Also, keep in mind that 30 isn't far off. That's the age at which most people
stop suffering fools gladly.
Just a heads up.
EDIT
It's been suggested that quitting a bad job is for quitters.
Maybe so, but keep in mind that you're supposed to
put your employer to the Joel test before you accept the job, not after.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
What arguments can be used against using zip files of source code as a form of version control?
In general each developer is working on their own program and has a responsibility for it. But there are times of course when other developers are involved in work on that program.
Each developer has their own naming convention for zip files ranging from appending the date, a number after the program name or even appending _old / _oldold _newversion etc… When there is collaboration on development of some code. It has to be checked who has the ‘latest’ version of the code – and where it resides, usually the correct version is identified.
There is no easy existing method to diff source trees and during development unwanted changes occasionally slip into code.
The zip file corresponding to software releases that have release to manufacturing are archived. This at least adds some traceability.
Also before RTM there the code is peer reviewed against the previously released version so quality assurance does exist.
Are there any formal white papers explaining the advantages of source control, making clear that the above isn’t a fully valid form of source control? Arguments exist here that since the end product (manufacturing releases) are under control and these are reviewed that there is no problem with the process. Developers do not have too much of a problem working with zip files in this way, but may not be aware of the advantages.
Creating and managing zip files is error-prone.
Real source control gives you tools to understand your code:
History browsing
Diffs between revisions
Annotation of source files to track the origin of a change
Real source control isn't difficult, there's lots of help out there.
The best argument is surely that using a version control system like Subversion or Mercurial is much, much easier and more secure than messing about with zip files. I doubt there has been much paper writing on the subject, as the use of
zip files for this purpose is fairly obviously wrong.
There are a number of SO questions on the general advantages of version control. For example How can I convince my department to implement a version control system? and https://stackoverflow.com/questions/250984/do-i-really-need-version-control
I assume you currently work at a company that practices this method of zip control, and you're looking for ammunition to help you change this practice. There are a lot of questions on StackOverflow about source control, and the community here are in near-total consensus on the benefits of proper source control and the horrors of working without it (for very good reason).
I'll add something here to benefit your battle: YOUR COMPANY IS #$#%&$## CRAZY!!! ZIP FILES??? ARE YOU ##$##% KIDDING ME???
I am assuming that this question was asked because the original poster is working in an office where the standard practice is to share zip files.
Zip files are obviously bad, for the reasons given by Ned Batchelder. The biggest reason I would suggest is that it's clunky, and difficult to merge changes, or get diffs between past revisions easily.
I would recommend you read A Visual Guide to Version Control for some good arguments about why version control systems are very useful, and a superior way of managing code.
I suspect there'll be as many white papers comparing zip files to proper source control as there'll be white papers comparing cutting one's genitals off with a rusty butter knife with buying a puppy.
Zip files work as a very basic form of version control. It's a way to separate "states" of the source. However, it's not a good form of version control because you have to do a lot of work to perform basic source control management tasks. For example:
Bob's team is working on a major feature that requires changing dozens of files. He works in his own private zip-controlled area for a while. He's created 30 new files, added features to 12 existing files, and made changes to existing behavior in 3 existing files over 4 months. How do you merge Bob's work with the main trunk that has also evolved over the last 4 months? Do you hand-diff thousands of lines of code and decide how to merge them? How do you ensure that anything that uses the 15 existing files isn't broken? How do you ensure that Bob's features or main trunk features aren't accidentally omitted?
Alice is investigating a bug in her code and realizes that one of Sam's classes has changed its behavior. Sam says he didn't make the change. How does Alice find when and why the change was made? How does Alice know who depends on the change?
A major customer has reported a bug in an older version of the program. This customer needs a fix and is important enough to warrant a patch. How do you add the code to the old zip file in a way that it also exists in the new files? Also, how do you record that there is a relationship between the two changes?
These are just three scenarios that a version control system handles well. Situation 1 is handled by development branches. Almost every version control system has a notion of branches that can be developed in parallel and merged as needed. Situation 2 is easily addressed by any source control system with a "blame" feature and less easily addressed by just searching commit logs. Situation 3 is a variant of situation 1, but when you merge branches most version control systems make a note. For example, you'd make a branch off of the old version, fix the bug, then merge that branch into the new code. Now when someone asks "Where did this change come from?" they see it was merged from the patch branch and the change was made to fix a bug.
By the way, I've been in each of these 3 situations and used both SVN and Perforce; both made finding a solution very easy.
These people already know all the arguments for SCM, there is nothing anyone can say to them that will sell them on it. These things must happen:
You install SCM on your local machine and use it. If you must, have it autogenerate these .zip files at every build, so no one outside your cube knows the difference.
Some kind of disaster occurs, like loss of work, show-stopper bug is re-introduced or some other worst-case scenario that is the real reason we all use SCM (the other features we learn to appreciate later).
You are unaffected by the disaster, and/or use your personal copy of the code in SCM to fix the problem/recover the lost work/whatever.
You are a hero and everyone wants to know how you did it.
Only by experiencing firsthand the pain of loss caused by poor SCM practices will your organization realize the benefits of SCM. You're smart enough to learn from the mistakes of others, but not everyone is. The rest of the time, you'll just be 2/3X more productive than the rest of the team and maybe, just maybe they'll wonder how.
By the way, this is how you get agile, continuous integration, unit testing, etc into the organization: lead by example.
The ZIP solution requires a pro-active step at the end of the development cycle when things tend to get dropped because no one outside the dev group notices when they doesn't happen. Sort of like that final code cleanup you always plan on doing when things slow down.
An SCM integrated into the dev environment pretty much enforces/encourages keeping a version history with a small amount of effort all the way through the process. This makes it more likely that a version history will actually be created.
On Using ZIP as a SCM
I'm not going to take as hard of a line as some of the others on the ZIP file solution. It is at least better than nothing. It is a perfectly valid way of keeping version histories, it is just a lot more labor intensive, error prone, and lacks a lot of useful features.
Know who you are selling to
Someone in the Dev Group: Focus your arguments on features like ease of troubleshooting by using change histories, safety to experiment with big code changes (because of rollback), and avoiding accidents where work is overwritten by other developers.
Non-Tech Managers/Bean-counters: There are free/low-cost tools that will reduce the labor cost of version control and give greater accountability/transparency into what each developer is doing/the source of coding mostakes.
I wrote a Version Control tool long ago for a company who did the authoring for DVD titles. Before that they had nothing, just a directory full of clips, icons, scripts etc. which anyone could hack away at, and no way to backtrack if it went wrong etc. HOWEVER these people were 'artists', not programmers, so they could not (would not???!) be trained to use a decent Version Control system. So as a bare-minimum, get-out-of-the-mud level tool I wrote a utility which zipped up the current state of the directory, gave the Zip a meaningful name (date + comment supplied by user) and stuck it in a Backups directory, and also allowed you to restore one of these backups.
So zips CAN provide minimum-level version control, and I speak as someone who endorsed that approach when it was right for the skill-level (in terms of programming, I don't want to imply that they couldn't manipulate pixels!) of the people using it.
But as a programmer, you should be thinking to use a tool which really helps you. As such you want to be able to compare differences for individual files, compare differences between complete milestone sets, and (if you are working on anything other than trivial programmes) handle branching and merging. If you want these features you need something BETTER than zip files.
I used to use ComponentSoftware RCS, and if it wasn't for its poor performance over a WAN we might still be using it: it is cheap (even free for single-developer use, in which form I used to use it at home) and simple to use. However nowadays I would suggest looking at SubVersion. It is very flexible, reasonably simple to understand, has a good set of Windows tools to make it even easier (e.g. Tortoise, Ankh), and ... best of all ... you can get it running for free.
It's not good as only creating a zip before a release means loosing a lot of power you get with version control.
Useually you should check in to the repository after you have added/removed/changed a functional aspekt. So that you can go back later when an error occurres that you think migth be because of this change. Or when you say "dammed this worked before the file format changed in someday in march." Naming revisions after changes makes it also easier to remember because you forgot what was done on 27 march 2009.
In general each developer is working
on their own program and has a
responsibility for it. But there are
times of course when other developers
are involved in work on that program.
In a normal development shop, this is not at all true. Different people work on the same source code all the time. XP makes it almost mandatory. Even if you separate the code into modules, there will still be interaction points with code that concerns at least two programmers.
Of course, it's almost impossible to collaborate without major problems if you don't use source control. But the scenario you describe is much more a way to adjust to this limitation than a sane project structure.
Having only a single person working on a module means that nothing will happen when that person is on vacation and you have a major problem when he leaves the company, gets sick for a long time, or dies.
How do you do a merge? How do you do an annotate? How do you bisect? Where are changelogs stored? Just go to wikipedia and look up "Version control" and go down the list: zip files can kind of sort of do about 2 things out of the whole page.
This is like asking "What arguments can be used against shorthand as a form of double-entry bookkeeping?". It's a completely different thing.
For arguments, there's Walter Tichy's original paper on RCS.
For missing features, among many others there's the ability to merge changes from different versions. This is especially well supported by tools like git and darcs, and to a lesser extent mercurial.
P.S. To Mercurial fans: the problem is that Mercurial delegates the merge process to external tools, and it's very difficult for the mercurial novice to know which tool to use, or to understand how they work—the mercurial model of merging seems far more powerful than others but correspondingly difficult to get a grip on.
I haven't seen an answer include Eric Sink's Source Control HOWTO, but it's a valuable reference. I haven't seen any formal white papers on version control, but I'm not sure the argument about "validity" is your strongest one. The problems you describe in your question indicate some pretty serious drawbacks with the current approach. If "the powers that be" in your environment aren't convinced by that, change the argument entirely.
If you make it a question of quality control, and point to continuous integration as a practice that encourages it, then the zip file approach to version control isn't a "not fully valid form of version control", but an obstacle to implementing continuous integration as a practice.
Your question doesn't indicate whether or not the end product "under control" is tested in any automated fashion (in addition to being reviewed). If the process you describe would prevent that from taking place as well, certainly add that to your argument too.
I think your best argument is showing a GOOD form of source control and showing how powerful it is. Don't trash what is currently being done (as someone is surely emotionally attached to that). You don't want to trash the "ZIP Source Control Method." Show the power of something like SVN. Make it very easy to explain. Show common use cases. (A solid demo would help.)
Let the source control version sell itself.